Platinum open access journal
pISSN 2466-0493 eISSN 2466-054X
Indexed in MEDLINE, SCIE, Scopus, DOAJ and more
    Korean J Urol. 2008 Mar;49(3):221-226. Korean.
    Published online Mar 31, 2008.
    https://doi.org/10.4111/kju.2008.49.3.221
    Copyright © 2008 The Korean Urological Association
    Original Article

    Comparison of Open and Robotic Surgery in Radical Prostatectomy: A Single Surgeon's Experience

    Won Sik Ham, Sung Yul Park, Kang Su Cho, Jin Sun Lee and Young Deuk Choi
      • Department of Urology and Urological Science Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
    Received November 30, 2007; Accepted February 11, 2008.

    Abstract

    Purpose

    To compare the results of open radical prostatectomy (OP) and robotic prostatectomy (RP) for a single surgeon's experience of 219 radical prostatectomy cases.

    Materials and Methods

    Between June 2002 and June 2007, 133 patients underwent OP and between July 2005 and June 2007, 86 patients underwent RP. To compare the surgeon's experience-related differences, we divided the OP cases into 73 early cases (OP-I) and 60 late cases (OP-II), and the RP cases into 30 early cases (RP-I) and 56 late cases (RP-II). The clinical characteristics, perioperative results, and early clinical outcomes were evaluated.

    Results

    There were no significant differences in the preoperative characteristics between the four groups. For the RP cases, the mean estimated blood loss was decreased, a normal diet was started earlier, the mean duration of hospital stay and the mean duration of bladder catheterization was shorter than for the OP cases. The frequency of intraoperative complications significantly decreased in the RP-II group as compared to the RP-I group. Although there was no significant statistical difference in the positive surgical margin rates between the four groups, the rates were slightly decreased in the RP-II group. The recovery period of continence was shorter in the RP-II group than in the OP group and for patients 60 years or older, recovery of potency was also better in the RP-II group than the OP group.

    Conclusions

    Our results suggest that RP at the hands of an experienced surgeon may decrease the positive surgical margin rate to some degree. Additionally, performance of RP may lead to a shorter duration of bladder catheterization and hospital stay and a better recovery of continence and potency than obtainable by OP.

    Keywords
    Prostatic neoplasms; Open radical prostatectomy; Robotic radical prostatectomy

    Tables

    Table 1
    Preoperative patient characteristics

    Table 2
    Intraoperative and perioperative parameters according to the operative methods

    Table 3
    Re-obtainment of continence according to the operative methods

    Table 4
    Re-obtainment of an erection at postoperative 6 months according to the operative methods

    References

      1. Walsh PC, Donker PJ. Impotence following radical prostatectomy: insight into etiology and prevention. J Urol 1982;128:492–497.
      1. Guillonneau B, el-Fettouh H, Baumert H, Cathelineau X, Doublet JD, Fromont G, et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: oncological evaluation after 1,000 cases a Montsouris Institute. J Urol 2003;169:1261–1266.
      1. Bhayani SB, Pavlovich CP, Hsu TS, Sullivan W, Su LM. Prospective comparison of short-term convalescence: laparoscopic radical prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology 2003;61:612–616.
      1. Boccon-Gibod L. Radical prostatectomy: open? laparoscopic? robotic? Eur Urol 2006;49:598–599.
      1. Hara I, Kawabata G, Miyake H, Nakamura I, Hara S, Okada H, et al. Comparison of quality of life following laparoscopic and open prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Urol 2003;169:2045–2048.
      1. Jaffe J, Stakhovsky O, Cathelineau X, Barret E, Vallancien G, Rozet F. Surgical outcomes for men undergoing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy after transurethral resection of the prostate. J Urol 2007;178:483–487.
      1. Touijer K, Guillonneau B. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a critical analysis of surgical quality. Eur Urol 2006;49:625–632.
      1. Menon M, Tewari A, Baize B, Guillonneau B, Vallancien G. Prospective comparison of radical retropubic prostatectomy and robot-assisted anatomic prostatectomy: the Vattikuti Urology Institute experience. Urology 2002;60:864–868.
      1. Nelson B, Kaufman M, Broughton G, Cookson MS, Chang SS, Herrell SD, et al. Comparison of length of hospital stay between radical retropubic prostatectomy and robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. J Urol 2007;177:929–931.
      1. Webster TM, Herrell SD, Chang SS, Cookson MS, Baumgartner RG, Anderson LW, et al. Robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy versus retropubic radical prostatectomy: a prospective assessment of postoperative pain. J Urol 2005;174:912–914.
      1. Tewari A, Srivasatava A, Menon M. A prospective comparison of radical retropubic and robot-assisted prostatectomy: experience in one institution. BJU Int 2003;92:205–210.
      1. Rassweiler J, Seemann O, Schulze M, Teber D, Hatzinger M, Frede T. Laparoscopic versus open radical prostatectomy: a comparative study at a single institution. J Urol 2003;169:1689–1693.
      1. Salomon L, Levrel O, de la Taille A, Anastasiadis AG, Saint F, Zaki S, et al. Radical prostatectomy by the retropubic, perineal and laparoscopic approach: 12 years of experience in one center. Eur Urol 2002;42:104–110.
      1. Walsh PC, Marschke P, Ricker D, Burnett AL. Patient-reported urinary continence and sexual function after anatomic radical prostatectomy. Urology 2000;55:58–61.
      1. Ahlering TE, Woo D, Eichel L, Lee DI, Edwards R, Skarecky DW. Robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy: a comparison of one surgeon's outcomes. Urology 2004;63:819–822.
    Cited by
    Crossref 3
    Google Scholar 
    Scopus 3
    MeSH Terms
    Catheterization
    Catheters
    Diet
    Hand
    Humans
    Intraoperative Complications
    Length of Stay
    Prostatectomy
    Prostatic Neoplasms
    Urinary Bladder
    Metrics
    Share
    Tables
    slide
    slide
    slide
    slide

    1 / 4

    PERMALINK